CAJETAN PINTO vs Dr. (Mrs.) SHIRIN
This matter concerns an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against a third party, wherein the petitioner sought to be impleaded as a necessary party, claiming to be the actual tenant of the premises and asserting regular payment of rent to the respondent. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application for impleadment, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the status of a tenant and lacked locus standi to participate in the proceedings. Subsequently, an ejectment order was issued against the original respondent. The petitioner challenged both the dismissal of the impleadment application and the ejectment order before the High Court, which dismissed the appeal due to a lack of cogent or satisfactory evidence proving the petitioner's tenancy. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether there were grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the determination of tenancy status is a question of fact, and finding no error in the concurrent decisions of the courts below, it dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower courts' findings.
- Can a third party be impleaded in ejectment proceedings without establishing a valid tenancy relationship?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy status?
- Is a person who fails to prove tenancy entitled to join ejectment proceedings as a necessary party?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- In an ejectment proceeding substituted by the respondent Dr. Mrs. Shirin against one Qazi Azmat Ali the petitioner applied for impleadment on the ground that he was the tenant of the respondent and that he had been regularly paying rent to her. The application was, however, dismissed on 26-8-1984 for the reason that he was not a tenant and had otherwise no locus standi to join the proceedings as a necessary party. On 27-8-1984, an ejectment order was passed in the case. The petitioner came to the High Court in appeal against both orders but the appeal was dismissed for the reason that there was no cogent or satisfactory evidence to establish that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the premises in question.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel satisfied 'that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent decisions of the Courts below on a question of fact. The petition is dismissed.